Empires are just like everything else going down the toilet. Bits always stick on the porcelain which require more flushing. Embarrassing bits.

Now in its fifth week since the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on March 4, the bits that cannot be flushed away are producing an odour whose obviousness is embarrassing for Salisbury Hospital and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The hospital is treating the Skripals for their medical welfare and is required by hospital policy and UK law to be accountable to their next of kin. Their rights of access to and from the hospital are also required by European Human Rights Convention. The evidence now accumulating is that the hospital is detaining and isolating the Skripals against their will, preventing contact with their family. Requested to explain this and identify her legal authority, the response of the hospital’s chief executive, Cara Charles-Barks, is to stonewall.

The OPCW, comprising 192 states which have signed, ratified and enacted the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), is governed by a 41-member Executive Council, and administered by a Secretary-General and a staff based in The Hague. They represent the management arm of the Convention to ensure that everyone follows its provisions. But in acting on the Skripal case, the OPCW is voting in secret and violating the articles of the Convention itself. The OPCW’s spokesman, an American named Deepti Choubey, refuses to reply to questions claiming the right of confidentiality according to the Convention and the OPCW’s policy. When asked to identify which provisions of the Convention apply, and what is the text of the OPCW policy on confidentiality, Choubey’s response is to stonewall.

Yulia Skripal can hear and speak, according to the British state broadcaster BBC, but she is incommunicado. In Moscow, her cousin Victoria Skripal has told the Russian press she has repeatedly tried to telephone her cousin on the latter’s Russian mobile telephone, but that this device has been disconnected.

That was until Thursday morning, when Yulia Skripal reportedly initiated this call from the hospital to her cousin in Moscow. She was using what she called a “temporary telephone”.

Listen to the Russian tape-recording of the call here

The BBC has broadcast an edited and excerpted version of this conversation, with English commentary over the Russian voices. Its translation of the Russian into English can be read here.

Victoria told Yulia: “Look, if tomorrow I get a [British] visa, I’ll come to you on Monday.” Yulia replied: “Vika, no-one will give you a visa.”

Amplifying on this, Yulia said: “that’s the situation at the moment, we’ll sort it out later… Later, we’ll get it sorted later, everything’s fine, we’ll see later… Everything’s fine, but we’ll see how it goes, we’ll decide later. You know what the situation is here. Everything is fine, everything is solvable, everyone is recovering and is alive.”

On Thursday, soon after the Moscow telephone-call was broadcast, the Metropolitan Police in London issued a statement. Its veracity cannot be authenticated, and its substance is contradictory. On the one hand, the release claims to have been “issued on behalf of Yulia Skripal”. On the other hand, the statement quotes Yulia Skripal directly. Why her words could not have been given to the press and public directly is not explained.

Because neither the Russian telephone recording nor the British police statement can be authenticated and verified independently, the only thing certain is that Yulia Skripal is not permitted by the hospital to speak directly in public. The implication is that she will also not be permitted to meet her cousin, and that, accordingly, it is unlikely the UK Government will allow Victoria Spripal to enter the UK. The British state broadcaster is reporting the contrary: “the Foreign Office said its Moscow embassy was expected to give Victoria a [British] visa, possibly on Thursday, and that she would be given full [Russian] consular help in the UK.”

The Russian Embassy in London has issued several statements that it has been unlawfully denied consular access to the Skripals at Salisbury Hospital. The British law requiring their contact and communication is in the enactment in November 1968 of the UK-USSR treaty number 92. Article 36 is explicit on the British law applying to Russian government officials in the Skripal case.

Source: http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/1968/TS0092.pdf

The preceding Article 35 of the treaty is also explicit in allowing the Russian Embassy to identify Victoria Skripal, or a British lawyer, or both together, to represent the Skripals in hospital, and to meet with them without obstacle or hindrance.

Source: http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/1968/TS0092.pdf

To date, Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko in London and the Foreign Ministry in Moscow have not attempted to exercise this entitlement. If the UK Embassy in Moscow refuses Victoria an entry visa, that action will be open for the Russians to engage a Queen’s Counsel to challenge under Article 35 in the High Court.

Another British law applies, too. Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — incorporated in the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 — orders that “noone shall be deprived of his liberty” except for six specified circumstances. These cover arrest on suspicion of crime, conviction by a court, or “for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases.” In all of these conditions, Section 4 of the Article allows access to the court for the person detained, or their legal representative:

This is also the habeas corpus provision in longstanding British law, explained here.

The Salisbury Hospital’s chief executive Cara Charles-Barks was asked on March 31 to clarify the circumstances of the Skripals’ condition in the hospital:

Charles-Barks replied on April 4 through a spokesman. “In answer to questions 1,2 and 4 the [Salisbury Hospital] Trust is not commenting beyond what it has already said in public due to patient confidentiality. In response to question 3 it is the Trust’s standard procedure that patients who have capacity are asked whether they would like to receive visits and if so from whom. No-one is permitted access to patients without their consent. Due to patient confidentiality, the Trust is not able to enter into further correspondence about the clinical care of patients.”

This is a shutdown by the hospital of all communications regarding Yulia Skripal on the ground that she has given her consent, and that said, the hospital has the authority to safeguard her privacy. Neither the consent nor the privacy can be independently verified. Both claims by Charles-Barks are subject to UK law and the European human rights convention so that verification can be tested by sworn evidence in court.

If on the day after Charles-Barks’ email, Yulia Skripal made her telephone-call to Victoria Skripal on a telephone not her own, she was disputing her consent, and exercising her right to speak to her next of kin. Alternatively, as the BBC and London newspapers have intimated, the call was fabricated and she cannot communicate with her cousin because she doesn’t want to. Both possibilities lead to the same place – a test in the High Court in London of the evidence of the Skripals’ condition.

The police statement “on her behalf” implies what the hospital already claimed by putting the words in Yulia’s mouth on Metropolitan Police letterhead: “I hope that you’ll respect my privacy and that of my family during the period of my convalescence.” Since Victoria Skripal is indisputably “family”, and the telephone-call is now public, the standing of Victoria Skripal to speak on behalf her cousin and uncle, and to challenge the legality of the Skripals’ detention is also indisputable.

The embarrassingly obvious speck on the porcelain — Salisbury Hospital is in violation of British and international law. If this isn’t taken to court, it stinks.

There is also the odour from the OPCW headquarters at The Hague. On Thursday, at Russia’s request, the forty-one members of the Executive Council were called into a special session to discuss the Skripal case, and to consider a Russian proposal to implement Articles VIII and IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Read that here.

Article VIII sets down the rules, procedures and organizations for implementing the requirements of the Convention with which everybody, Russia and the UK included, agrees to comply. Article VIII requires the Executive Council to vote on “decisions on matters of substance by a two-thirds majority of all its members.” That’s 27 votes. Nowhere in this article is there a proviso for the Executive Council to keep its voted decisions secret.

Secrecy does not appear in the Convention at all except for agreements which members of the technical staff of the organization are required to sign covering their work and their access to classified information of member states.

Article IX sets out the requirement that when one member state suspects it has been attacked by a chemical weapon, possibly from or by another member state, it shall (that means must) cooperate with the suspected party.

Source: https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CWC/CWC_en.pdf

The Russian proposal was for the Executive Council to enforce these provisions because the UK had been refusing to do so. The OPCW Secretary-General, Ahmet Üzümcü (right with US Secretary of State John Kerry), opened the session with a statement published on the OPCW website. Üzümcü, a Turk, was first appointed to the OPCW post in 2009. Before that, he served the Turkish Government in a variety of posts, including its embassy to NATO. Üzümcü has also been a member of the NATO staff in charge of expanding NATO military operations to the Russian frontier, as well as NATO operations in Ukraine and Syria. For a time also, he was the Turkish consul in the Syrian city of Aleppo.

On Thursday Üzümcü said the UK had invoked Article VIII to start an OPCW investigation of the Salisbury incident. He then described the OPCW inspection of several Salisbury sites and blood sampling of the Skripals in hospital. He also explained how the evidence was “split”, so that the UK received a part, and the OPCW kept the remainder.

“These samples,” Üzümcü claimed, “were sealed and brought to the OPCW laboratory on 23 March 2018. Samples were split in the presence of an expert from the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom was provided with one split of each sample. The environmental samples were then delivered to two designated laboratories, and the biomedical samples were delivered to another two designated laboratories. The collection, splitting, and transportation of the samples were carried out in-line with the relevant procedures of the Secretariat. The chain-of-custody was fully maintained.”

Üzümcü’s use of the legal term “chain-of-custody” is odd because OPCW is not a judicial body; he is a Turkish national under Turkish law, and the unidentified OPCW personnel responsible for the “splitting” were supervised by the British. No independent verification of the chain of custody or protection against tampering was arranged or published. London lawyers say such evidence would be inadmissible in a British court. Üzümcü’s chain-of-custody claim, comments one, “has no legal merit but it does tell you which side he’s on.”

Although Russia has been officially accused by the British Government of the chemical attack in Salisbury, Üzümcü didn’t mention it. He also did not say that any of the evidence the OPCW has gathered and is analysing will be made available to the Russian Government.

“The results of the sample analyses are expected to be received by early next week,” Üzümcü told the Council. “Once the results of the analyses of the samples are received [by the Director-General], the Secretariat will produce a report on the basis of these results and will transmit a copy of this report to the United Kingdom. The report will reflect the findings of the designated laboratories. Access of other States Parties to the report will be subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom pursuant to the Confidentiality Annex of the Convention, the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality, and the consistent practice in relation to other technical assistance visits.”

It is now public information that the head of the UK Government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Gary Aitkenhead, refuses to identify a Russian source from the samples of the poison which the Porton Down institution received from government agents gathering them from the Skripals and the Salisbury police officer who was contaminated at the Skripal home; the Skripals’ BMW car; and from sites around the city where the Skripals stopped before their medical collapse. “We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent,” Aitkenhead said. “We have not identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to the government who have then used a number of other sources.”

“It is our job,” Aitklenhead added, “to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured.”

A study by British academics of this class of nerve agents reported on April 1 that identifying a state origin from the samples examined by Porton Down, or by the OPCW, will be impossible because a large number of states have bench samples in their laboratories or are known to have synthesized them; and because the molecular structure of the agents breaks down swiftly in the blood and in the environment. “Blood tests for nerve agent detect only what is left of the molecule after it has bound to the receptor. The ‘leaving group’ (the rest of the molecule) cannot be identified. For sarin (and presumably for A-234 [Novichok]) the leaving group is a fluorine atom, and for VX the leaving group is a thiol.”

Üzümcü’s statement at yesterday’s session of the OPCW rules out the possibility that the OPCW report will publicly identify the molecular traces in the sampling which has been conducted, and that no source of manufacture will be identifiable.

Since Üzümcü told the Executive Council he was following the UK request to keep the OPCW evidence and its reported conclusion from public release or from Russian examination, the Russians, joined by Iran and China, called for a vote of the Council to require the UK to comply with the Article IX “cooperation” rule. Ahead of the vote, the OPCW published official member statements from several countries.

Fourteen of the members, including Russia (China did not join), declared: “We consider it necessary to ensure that this problem is solved exclusively within the international legal framework using the full potential of the CWC. The stake holders among States Parties of the OPCW should, in close cooperation with each other through constructive dialogue, find a solution for the current dangerous situation and prevent its further escalation.”

The outcome of the session has not been officially reported by the OPCW. Press reports indicate that of the 41 members of the council, 3 were absent; 15 voted against the Russian proposal; 6 voted in favour; 17 abstained. According to the Russian representative, Alexander Shulgin, “unfortunately, we didn’t manage to get the qualitied majority of two-thirds of the votes, which would mean adoption of our resolution. The Britons, Americans and – following their example – EU and NATO member-states and some the Asian allies of the US voted against it. It’s noteworthy, however, that 23 countries refused to associate themselves with that viewpoint. They either voted for our proposal or refrained from voting. And this is a half of all the members of the Executive Council.”

The Foreign Office in London issued this tweet:

Source: https://twitter.com/foreignoffice

To clarify what had transpired at the OPCW council session, Üzümcü’s spokesman was asked to identify the member states which had absented themselves from Thursday’s session; and to name the countries voting against the resolution; for the resolution; and those abstaining. She was also asked to clarify the claim by Üzümcü, reported to the Council, that denial of access of state members of OPCW to the Skripal investigation report is founded on the Confidentiality Annex of the Convention. To which specific section or sub-section of the Annex was the Director-General referring? the spokesman was asked.

The spokesman of the OPCW is Deepti Choubey, an American who has worked for a series of the US funded and US directed think-tanks, according to this resume. Her media credits, she reports, include “CNN, MSNBC, Russia Today TV, Voice of America, numerous foreign outlets, National Public Radio, BBC, ABC Radio and CBS Radio…the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and U.S. News and World Report.” The British Government was one of the principal financiers of the think-tank on chemical and nuclear warfare where Choubey worked between 2010 and 2012. For more on Choubey’s background, read this. For her paymasters, click.

Choubey issued a tweet to report Thursday’s session; this republished the official statements already posted on the OPCW website:

CLICK TO ENLARGE
Source: https://twitter.com/realdeeptic?lang=en

She refused to respond to a telephone call or to emails setting out the questions. Instead, an unsigned email was despatched to say:

Choubey refuses to clarify what provision of the Chemical Weapons Convention makes the secrecy of Council votes lawful. The Confidentiality Annex of the Convention also fails to provide for the secrecy of Council votes. The annex covers mostly the technical and investigative work of the OPCW. It is silent regarding cases where one OPCW member states accuses another member state of a chemical weapons attack on its territory and citizens, as the UK, the US and the European Union are charging Russia.

Read the Confidentiality Annex carefully here.

In short, the UK can order Director-General Üzümcü, a NATO ally, to accept its “designation” for information it wants to keep secret from Russia, including the names of the member states which refused to agree with the UK in the vote to implement Article IX of the Convention, and make the OPCW investigation of the British allegations open, transparent, accountable to the Convention itself.

This is what Üzümcü did. When he told the Council in his published statement “the United Kingdom has expressed its wish to be as transparent as possible”, he was faking. By telling Choubey to stonewall, he turned the Convention into a deadletter.

Fri Apr 06 09:22:37
What evidence is there that the Hospital is preventing contact with next of kin?

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:24:09
" But in acting on the Skripal case, the OPCW is voting in secret and violating the articles of the Convention itself"

Which articles are being violated?

Which votes have been conducted in secret? Which articles prohibit votes in secret?

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:26:41
"In Moscow, her cousin Victoria Skripal has told the Russian press she has repeatedly tried to telephone her cousin on the latter’s Russian mobile telephone, but that this device has been disconnected."

It may have been impounded as evidence - if the vector for contamination was her hand then it would be contaminated.

The UK would not be able to disconnect the line if it is a Russian phone company. It could be her minutes/contract is expired (roaming charges). It could be that there is no reception in the hospital. Most hospitals, particularly ICU, insist mobile phones are not used due to interference with medical equipment.

Rugian
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:26:59
TL;DR recap of last thread:

jergul believes that Russia was framed but that the West is supporting the UK because Theresa May is secretly the greatest diplomat since Talleyrand. Seb has learned nothing from 2003 and 2011 and still blindly trusts whatever his government says. Watching them go at each other is exhausting.

Paramount
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:27:59
”The evidence now accumulating is that the hospital is detaining and isolating the Skripals against their will, preventing contact with their family.”

So the UK has basically kidnapped Yulia and is holding her hostage?

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:28:14
"The BBC has broadcast an edited and excerpted version of this conversation"

It was actually broadcast in Russia, the BBC has broadcast a recording obtained from the broadcast in Russia.

If the recording is suspcious, we should note that it's origin is Russian.

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:29:55
"the only thing certain is that Yulia Skripal is not permitted by the hospital to speak directly in public"

Why is this certain? She may simply have declined to speak. She may indeed have called her cousin, irrespective of the media's inability to verify this.

Has there been any evidence that we have restricted access of Yulia to Russian consulate?

Rugian:
While the government spun in 2003, it did not say anything that was either fundamentally true (I noted at the time that 45 minutes both in the statement by the govt and in report cleraly referred to battlefield weapons on SCUDS aimed at Cypress) or which they did not at the time believe to be true.

I think you have possibly learned a lesson that is not true.

What exactly are you thinking about in 2011?

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:42:26
"To date, Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko in London and the Foreign Ministry in Moscow have not attempted to exercise this entitlement."

LOL. So basically the Russians are lying. They have not been denied consular access, they simply have not attempted to exercise it.

Like I said, they don't want access. They want the issue.

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:45:27
"This is a shutdown by the hospital of all communications regarding Yulia Skripal on the ground that she has given her consent"

No, it's basically stating the simple fact:
1. They can't break doctor-patient confidentiality
2. Yulia can have visitors, if she requests them, but there is no obligation absent a court order that would force her to recieve them.

And as the article notes, there are a number of legal routes for Russia to pursue to obtain access but they have not chosen to pursue them.

There is simply not basis at all for this calim she is being "held incommunicado". She's not being held - she's in hospital; and she's not incommunicado (and may very well have phoned her cousin).

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 09:54:21
"Article IX sets out the requirement that when one member state suspects it has been attacked by a chemical weapon, possibly from or by another member state, it shall (that means must) cooperate with the suspected party."

Thre is no such obligation in Article IX. IX which is about requesting inspections if they think there is non compliance.

Article X deals with protection. Some points from Article X
6. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as impeding the right of States Parties to request and provide assistance bilaterally and to conclude individual agreements with other States Parties concerning the emergency procurement of assistance.

8. Each State Party has the right to request and, subject to the procedures set forth in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, to receive assistance and protection against the use or threat of use of chemical weapons if it considers that:

(a) Chemical weapons have been used against it;

(b) Riot control agents have been used against it as a method of warfare; or

(c) It is threatened by actions or activities of any State that are prohibited for States Parties by Article I.

9. The request, substantiated by relevant information, shall be submitted to the Director-General, who shall transmit it immediately to the Executive Council and to all States Parties. The Director-General shall immediately forward the request to States Parties which have volunteered, in accordance with paragraphs 7 (b) and (c), to dispatch emergency assistance in case of use of chemical weapons or use of riot control agents as a method of warfare, or humanitarian assistance in case of serious threat of use of chemical weapons or serious threat of use of riot control agents as a method of warfare to the State Party concerned not later than 12 hours after receipt of the request. The Director-General shall initiate, not later than 24 hours after receipt of the request, an investigation in order to provide foundation for further action. He shall complete the investigation within 72 hours and forward a report to the Executive Council. If additional time is required for completion of the investigation, an interim report shall be submitted within the same time-frame. The additional time required for investigation shall not exceed 72 hours. It may, however, be further extended by similar periods. Reports at the end of each additional period shall be submitted to the Executive Council. The investigation shall, as appropriate and in conformity with the request and the information accompanying the request, establish relevant facts related to the request as well as the type and scope of supplementary assistance and protection needed.

10. The Executive Council shall meet not later than 24 hours after receiving an investigation report to consider the situation and shall take a decision by simple majority within the following 24 hours on whether to instruct the Technical Secretariat to provide supplementary assistance. The Technical Secretariat shall immediately transmit to all States Parties and relevant international organizations the investigation report and the decision taken by the Executive Council. When so decided by the Executive Council, the Director-General shall provide assistance immediately. For this purpose, the Director-General may cooperate with the requesting State Party, other States Parties and relevant international organizations. The States Parties shall make the fullest possible efforts to provide assistance.

There is no requirement for a joint bilateral investigation. It is very clear that investigation is the responsibility of the OPWC.

Paramount
Member

Fri Apr 06 10:03:30
A former Russian spy who was found slumped on a bench in an English town following a poison attack is no longer in critical condition and "improving rapidly," the hospital treating him said Friday.

Salisbury District Hospital said in a statement Sergei Skripal was "responding well to treatment" and "no longer in a critical condition".

But there was no anti-dote or treatment for this dangerous poison? What happened?

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 10:17:04
Paramount:

See the link I provided here:

tl;dr - antidotes and treatment are not the same thing. Atropine is an effective treatment for nerve agents and many other things and commonly stocked in ambulances for situations such as overdoses, which is how the Skripals would have presented. Toxicity in the lab is toxicity given no treatment. Nerve agents are slow acting through the skin and there are a number of things that could have happened to minimse the dose (washing of hands, the door getting wet from rain, secondary exposure if they were wearing gloves etc.).

Police and army personnel suit up on Larkhill Road in Durrington, Salisbury, during the investigation into the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal
Friday, 6 April 2018 12:12 PM
6
By Dan Kaszeta
An interesting question has been raised. If nerve agents -and in particular the so-called Novichok agents - are so deadly, why didn’t Sergie and Yulia Skripal die immediately? Instead, as countless internet conspiracy theorists have pointed out, both the daughter and father appear to be out of critical condition. This is a valid question that deserves an answer.
First, it is important to get the terminology correct. 'Nerve agents' are chemical substances that interfere with the chemistry of the human nervous system by binding with an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase. By this definition, a number of chemical warfare agents and a number of pesticides are included in the family of compounds known as nerve agents.
Nerve agents are not toxins by the technical definition. Toxins are poisons produced from animal, plant, or microbial sources. Snake venom is a toxin. Sarin and VX and Novichoks, being products of wholly man-made origin, are not toxins. The term 'nerve gas' is not useful, either, as the nerve agents are all liquids or solids at room temperature.
Opinion Former News
BASC and RSPCA team up for airgun conference
Government expects to se evidence of minimum unit pricing in 'two to three years'
Rethink Mental Illness responds to new report on the Mental Health Act
Opinion Former Video
Why antibiotics are becoming less effective ...

<>
More videos
The term 'military grade' is also completely pointless. Some militaries made very high grade nerve agents during the Cold War, such as the USSR and the United States. However, militaries have made and used much lower-grade nerve agents, such as the very poor quality Sarin that Saddam Hussein made and used against both civilian and military targets in the Iran-Iraq war. As militaries have had both the highest and lowest grade of nerve agent, the term 'military grade' is redundant. It is literally comparable to saying 'catering-grade grape product' to refer to both the highest grade Bordeaux and grape juice.
Nerve agents only really work quickly when they are inhaled. The mechanism of action in the Skripal case appears to be dermal absorption – the agent got into their systems through the skin. This works slowly. Signs and symptoms progress from localised ones at the site of exposure to central ones over a period of hours. In a cold war-era study with goats and the nerve agent Soman, death took up to 48 hours after exposure to the shaved skin. It's not exactly fast.
Second, if something happened to reduce the intended dose - for instance if the person opening a door handle was wearing gloves - then a possibly quite lethal dose could have been mitigated to a lower one.
In addition, we must also allow for human factors. Did one of the Skripals say: "What is this muck on my hands? I'm going to wash up". That would have initiated a self-decontamination effort. Soap and water is actually quite good at decontaminating nerve agents, as numerous studies have indicated. All of the organophosphate nerve agents degrade in the presence of water, through a mechanism called hydrolysis. So, did the door handle in question get wet? Salisbury is not known for an arid climate.
Practical toxicity in the field differs greatly from the theoretical toxicity of poisons in laboratory conditions. Every major nerve agent incident (Tokyo, Halabja, Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun etc) has had more people injured than killed. The Tokyo incident killed 12 people, but there were nearly 70 with major exposure who survived and nearly a thousand with minor to moderate exposure.
The most important thing to consider, however, is the nature of the lethality and toxicity estimates for nerve agents. All of these toxicological statistics are derived from studies wherein the targets (almost always lab animals) did not receive decontamination or treatment for their injuries. Indeed, if you were trying to experimentally determine figures for lethality, administering antidote therapy or decontamination would warp the results and be bad science. Statements that 'substance X is five times more lethal than Y' are only valid in the absence of medical treatment.
The bottom line is that nerve agents are killers in the absence of serious medical care, but their track record as killers is actually quite poor if some medical care is given. There are a number of cases where people were exposed to very high doses of nerve agents and survived with aggressive medical interventions.
It is clear that the Skripals and the police constable received serious and relevant medical interventions. The phrase 'no antidote to Novichoks' has been used and taken seriously out of context here. It's true that there’s no specific antidote to the Novichoks in the sense of an antitoxin or antivenin as a direct attack on the offending chemical. But we can tackle the harm they do.
All of the nerve agents, old and new, operate on the same biochemical principles and cause the same mechanism of injury by provoking a 'cholinergic crisis'. The direct therapy for this crisis is the same regardless of dose and regardless of the agent causing it. The most important drug is atropine. It directly works as an antagonist for the excess acetylcholine in the nervous system. Or, simply, it knocks down the build-up of chemicals that is making the victim sick. Atropine is not exotic or rare. It is routinely stocked in ambulances and hospitals for a number of uses, including overdoses and cardiac situations.
In the case of Salisbury, atropine is specifically referenced in the hospital trust's publically-available emergency plans. There’s nothing odd or strange about atropine being available in Salisbury. NHS ambulance services and hospital A&E services have been worrying about chemical terrorism for decades now. Excellent training is being given and numerous exercises have been held. People should be happy, not shocked, that training and protocols kicked in.
Other medical measures are important. There is a category of drugs called oximes. Their usefulness varies from nerve agent to nerve agent, and varies with the time between exposure and administration of drugs. Their usefulness in Novichok situations is not well established. Anticonvulsants like diazepam are useful as well, and would be relevant in Novichok poisoning. Supportive care to maintain open airways, assist breathing (if necessary, using ventilators) and maintain circulation are critical to survival, but are basic skills for any serious hospital.
Having worked in chemical warfare defence for 27 years, the survival of Sergei and Yulia Skripal are no surprise to me.
Dan Kaszeta is a London-based consultant in security and chemical defence. He has 27 years experience in the field, with roles in the US Army, the White House, the US Secret Service, and private industry. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.

Seb
Member

Fri Apr 06 10:17:44
Who said there was no treatment for nerve agents?

That's clearly incorrect.

Paramount
Member

Fri Apr 06 10:39:46
”Who said there was no treatment for nerve agents?

That's clearly incorrect.”

I read on some news site that there was no antidote for Novichok. Don’t remember which news site it was, but now that I googled it I found this:

The Russian scientist who helped develop the nerve agent that the British government says left former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in a critical condition in Salisbury has said they will die if they are taken off life support because there is no antidote.

Finding the actual person who exposed 3 people to dangerous chemicals that hospitalized them (two with life-threatening injuries) would be a good start to finding out what happened and why.

jergul
large member

Fri Apr 06 14:39:19
Seb
So the novichuk family of chemicals is about as dangerous as similar chemicals in real world conditions.

The term "military grade" is meaningless

And exposing persons to the chemical was unlikely to actually kill them in real world conditions.

A serious actor would have to know that the current outcome was quite likely.

A few people hospitalized, and once hospitalized, would have positive outcomes.

I think that a fair summary of the chemical expert post you provided.

jergul
large member

Fri Apr 06 14:42:26
LONDON, April 6. /TASS/. Former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal’s niece Viktoria, who wanted to visit her cousin Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom after the Salisbury incident, has been denied an entry visa, BBC reported on Friday.

According to BBC, the British authorities told Viktoria Skripal her visa application had been turned down as violating migration rules.

Just wow. It would seem self-evident that the UK should allow family to visit the woman in hospital.

Give us your spin Seb.

jergul
large member

Fri Apr 06 14:59:23
"Let us be clear, this was attempted murder using an illegal chemical weapon that we know Russia possesses."

BBC quoting the UK Foreign Office.

Well, yes. In sense that most nations should possess samples of the novichuk family chemicals as part of their domestic chemical detection and countermeasures programmes.

A natural expectation given the chemical formula has been in the public domain since 1996.

jergul
large member

Sat Apr 07 08:23:01
Ruggy
May had structured the narrative as an Article 5 case. Nato support from that perspective was lacklustre at best.

But its a variant of "If I can't have it, I will break it" pillar of international relations.

It was politically impossible to not support May if the end goal was keeping Nato as a viable defensive organization.

That May mislead her allies on the strength of its narrative is something we have not seen play out yet. But we will. In one form or another.

Seb
Member

Sat Apr 07 09:19:48
jergul:

"So the novichuk family of chemicals is about as dangerous as similar chemicals in real world conditions."

Not necessarily.

"The term "military grade" is meaningless"
I suspect it relates to the purity of the substance - lets say it is poorly defined.

"And exposing persons to the chemical was unlikely to actually kill them in real world conditions."

That does not follow. Suppose they had been exposed inside their house?

"A serious actor would have to know that the current outcome was quite likely."

As has been pointed out, if the intent was purely to kill them, there are more effective ways of doing so. If on the other hand it was in part to send messages about the reach, determination of the Russian state, then no.

"A few people hospitalized, and once hospitalized, would have positive outcomes."
If Hospitalised.

"Just wow. It would seem self-evident that the UK should allow family to visit the woman in hospital."

Not necessarily. We do not routinely give visas to allow this to happen.

"That May mislead her allies on the strength of its narrative"

Again, this is something you can only claim if you have a full knowledge of what the briefing contained.

Instead you are speculating.

Why are you speculating? And in your speculations, why do you consistently choose assumptions that are favourable to Putin's narrative?

jergul
large member

Sat Apr 07 09:27:30
Seb
Why are you speculating that the brief does indeed contain factors of substance, and why are you consistently choosing assumptions that are favourable to May's narrative?

Remember that the Russians are simply stating they did not do it and do not have a monopoly on the capability of doing it.

May is the one with the onus of proving something.

Which she would have to do publically. She is currently setting up a context where anyone and their dog wanting to harm Russia simply has to commit an act of terror on British soil and leave a few roubles by the crime scene.

jergul
large member

Sat Apr 07 09:29:37
Again, all I am saying is that we should give the police time to do their thing and identify and arrest the actual culprit.

Finding out his motive (including because he was hired by someone and did it as a job) follows from there.

Paramount
Member

Sat Apr 07 10:36:53
Why not decide who the killer is first, and then...once you have decided who the killer is then you search for the evidence.

swordtail
Anarchist Prime

Sat Apr 07 11:50:58
Why did Canada expel four Russian diplomats? Because they told the truth

The Russians are being punished for saying that Freeland’s grandfather was a Nazi collaborator during the Second World War. He was.

By Thomas Walkom National Affairs Columnist

Thu., April 5, 2018

We now know how the Russians have been subverting Canadian democracy. They have been propagating truthful news.

That information comes courtesy of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who on Wednesday finally explained the motive behind his government’s decision last week to expel four Russian diplomats and refuse entry to three more.

At the time, Ottawa said it was making the move in support of Britain, which blames Russia for using a deadly nerve agent to poison a double agent living in England.

But in a written statement, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland also said the Russians had been using their diplomatic status “to interfere in our democracy.”

How exactly the Russians had been interfering was not explained. Efforts to get more information from Freeland’s office were unsuccessful. In an interview on CBC, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said that he had to stay mum for reasons of national security. Nobody else would talk.

Then, on Wednesday,Trudeau spilled the beans. The Russians are being punished for saying that Freeland’s grandfather was a Nazi collaborator during the Second World War.

Trudeau called this an effort “by Russian propagandists” to smear Freeland, which perhaps it was.

The only trouble with all of this is that the Russians were telling the truth. Freeland’s maternal grandfather, Michael Chomiak, was a Nazi collaborator during the Second World War.

A Ukrainian nationalist, he fled Stalin’s advancing armies in 1939 and sought refuge in what was then German-occupied Poland.

There, under the aegis of the Nazis he edited a Ukrainian-language, anti-Semitic newspaper.

I first learned of this from a front-page story in that well-known vehicle of Russian propaganda, the Globe and Mail.

The Globe got its information by interviewing Freeland’s uncle, a historian who in 1996 wrote – with some assistance from his niece – a scholarly article detailing Chomiak’s wartime activities.

Was the Russian government happy to see this being made public? I expect it was. Freeland is a vocal critic of Moscow’s heavy-handed approach to Ukraine and is currently persona non grata in Russia.

The Russian government also finds it convenient to paint all of its critics in Ukraine as unreconstructed fascists. And while Freeland is certainly no fascist, she has publicly praised her grandparents for their influence on her and for their commitment to Ukrainian independence.

Given all of that, the Chomiak story was a gift to the Russians. Soon after Freeland’s appointment as foreign affairs minister last year, pro-Moscow websites began to pick it up.

To use Trudeau’s words, Moscow was probably trying to push a “pro-Russia narrative.”

But is it illegitimate for countries to use verifiable facts to make a case?

Certainly, the West doesn’t think so when it comes to the nerve agent story. Its decision to blame Moscow for the attack is based on one fact – that the poison used was first developed in the old Soviet Union.

The possibility that some other entity might have copied it is never entertained.

Instead, the world is presented with a complicated explanation that goes something like this: After years of ignoring retired double agent Sergei Skripal, Russian President Vladimir Putin finally decides to kill him.

In order to show who is responsible, Putin has his minions use a signature Russian nerve agent. But in order to hide who is responsible, he has another set of minions vigorously deny Russian culpability.

The attack isn’t particularly successful, since Skripal is still alive.

All of this is done for no apparent reason other than pure evil.

In theory, this scenario makes a certain amount of sense. Or at least it makes as much sense as expelling four diplomats for peddling truthful news.

Sat Apr 07 11:57:39
ST
The bundling is interesting. Suggesting that May's narrative on its own was not a good basis on which to expel Russian diplomats.

I should run through the reasons given by Nato country. Did anyone expel Russians based solely on the UK narrative?

jergul
large member

Sat Apr 07 16:06:47
LONDON, April 7. /TASS/. Former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal’s niece Viktoria has requested British Prime Minister Theresa May to reconsider her visa issue after her visa application had been rejected.

Viktoria’s address to May, read out in Russian, was broadcast by Sky News.

"What I would like most of all is to see them in person, to have a chance to tell our grandmother the truth about how her son and granddaughter are, but my visa application has been rejected. The whole world is talking about an unprecedented political scandal but there are real people at the scandal’s center. It is our family and we need to be together at the moment," Viktoria Skripal said.

The British authorities earlier rejected Viktoria Skripal's visa application claiming that t "did not comply with the immigration rules."

While commenting on the UK’s decision, a Russian embassy press officer said that it was "regrettable and worrying." "According to a ‘government source’ quoted by the BBC, the visa was denied because ‘it appears the Russian state is trying to use Viktoria as a pawn’. This clearly means that the decision has been taken out of purely political considerations. The Home Office reference to a violation of immigration rules doesn’t hold water. The normal way to correct any violation would be for the British Embassy to advise Ms Skripal on the necessary formalities so as to help her comply with the rules rather than deny the visa altogether," the press officer pointed out. "As a result of this decision, we are witnessing a situation where Sergei and Yulia Skripal, both reported as recovering, remain hidden from the public, media and consular officials, while the only relative who could reasonably expect to see them is kept out of the UK," the embassy added, adding that "the stubborn refusal to cooperate, to provide transparency and to answer the numerous questions means Britain has something to hide," the embassy added

Sun Apr 08 02:54:01
Media in Sweden has so far been silent about that the UK has denied a relative to Skripal to visit her family members.

Instead, Swedish media is still reporting that ”Russia must give an explanation”.

Hasn’t Russia already explained that they did not do it?

jergul
large member

Sun Apr 08 03:47:57
Now Russia bears ultimate responsibility for an alleged chemical attack in Syria (the narrative is that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons in an otherwise successful assault in eastern ghouta. The motive would be what exactly?).

This is fun.

I think the UK bears ultimate responsibility for world hunger. UK? I demand your explanation immediately!

jergul
large member

Sun Apr 08 04:04:34
The story in Douma as is follows

Rebel leadership refuses to be transported out of Douma, or otherwise come to terms with the regime.

Rebels start handing over heavy weapons and are transported to Idlib anyway.

So leadership orders all SAA prisoners killed. They are.

Syria ends the ceasefire and starts liquidating the pocket.

Rebels in the pocket claim the regime attacked them with chemical weapons.

"Why are you speculating that the brief does indeed contain factors of substance, and why are you consistently choosing assumptions that are favourable to May's narrative?"

Three reasons:
1. Firstly it was clearly compelling enough for between 20 and thirty countries to initiate broad diplomatic response. I don't believe they would have done it without additional evidence.

2. The briefing was given by intelligence officials and led by the FCO. So the dominant component is not the porton down element which is run by DSTL and would have been led by the MoD.

3. Because the reports and government have repeatedly said that the evidence presented was from a range of sources, and in the past few days more detail of that has been presented.

There is no reason to conclude the opposite.

Further, there is no basis at all - given that we can only speculate as to what was presented - that whatever was presented was untrue. Yet you arrive at this conclusion as definitive.

"Remember that the Russians are simply stating they did not do it and do not have a monopoly on the capability of doing it."

Well, they would wouldn't they? In any case, the fact they don't have the monopoly on capability is irrelevant. The UK govt presented evidence to allies that shows that the Russians, in the last decade, experimented using Novichok for assassinations, has built a small stockpile. We also know that Russia has assassinated people on UK soil before and recently issued another threat to kill traitors.

"May is the one with the onus of proving something."

And as you can see, she clearly has proved something to the satisfaction of nearly 30 countries. The fact you personally are not privy to that doesn't alter the nature of reality. Bluntly, whether you are persuaded or not really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I think the British Government has better things to do in this instance than lobbying a random Norwegian.

"Which she would have to do publically."
I don't see why you think she needs to do this publically. The object of course

"She is currently setting up a context where anyone and their dog wanting to harm Russia simply has to commit an act of terror on British soil and leave a few roubles by the crime scene."

No. Anyone and his dog is not able to obtain, e.g. polonium or synthesise fairly obscure nerve agents. It took Shin Aum millions of pounds with a large organisation of well trained individuals and the results were very low purity grade stuff and a crap delivery system resulting in a relatively low fatality rate when released in near optimal situation.

The last time we went with a police led response, the culprit was in Russia and had been elected to the Duma to provide cast iron diplomatic protection.

So, no, the police response if any can go in parallel.

This was an attack on the UK with treaty banned weapons, by a state actor, and a diplomatic and security led response is appropriate. And the majority of our allies agree with this, and the fact that random citizens in some countries (including our own) are confused on this point doesn't get in the way of that at all.

But it does indicate how poorly some people understand the nature of information warfare. Or how well.

Why has Russia not explored legal avenues described earlier?

Paramount:

"UK has denied a relative to Skripal to visit her family members."

Denied entry to the country, which we have done on many cases when people merely want to visit a hospital.

jergul
large member

Sun Apr 08 09:01:02
Seb
The common denominator for countries responding was that they were in Nato (with the exception of Sweden and Australia).

This suggests that the response has more to do with alliance unity than any actual strength of evidence.

Noting also that you do not have the support of some 165 countries.

The position that available evidence does not support May's position is quite warranted, with a strong basis for suspecting the evidence was also not really sufficient for the reaction of allies. Some of which have bundled reasons for expelling diplomats for exactly that reason.

Note that Shin Aum's chemical use was far more effective than the chemicals in the UK. 3 people hospitalized, all three making recoveries.

I have absolutely no faith in the samples the UK recovered being of high grade. We would have had dead people if that had been the case.

If the police are unable to find a culprit, then there is essentially no case at all. Why is the UK not exploring these avenues.

Keeping Yulia incommunicado is suspicious. Allowing her cousin to visit would have allayed those suspicions. I know the foreign office said they had passed on the offer of concilour services. But passed on to whom? Yulia's intelligence handlers?

Yah, you are setting yourself up for a huge disappoint.

Seb
Member

Sun Apr 08 10:44:41
Jergul:

Yes, allies. What of it?

Bundling of reasons to explain which specific diplomats were being declared persona non grata is to be expected.

Effectiveness is bundled with dose and delivery.

Shin Sum used much more nerve agent than a thin residue on a door.

High grade wouldn't necessarily lead to higher mortality. Flip it around. How high a purity do you need to give a lethal dose from an inocuous smear on a door that the target doesn't notice?

There is no basis for claiming Yulia is being held incommunicado. Should we be forcing her to give press conferences? You'd then say she was being used for propoganda purposes.

Russia hasn't formally attempted to use any mechanisms to talk to her.

jergul
large member

Sun Apr 08 13:03:49
Seb
Well, allies who have a vested interest in not seeing the alliance implode. So have reasons to humour May's requests that have little to do with available evidence.

Residue is not high grade by definition. There is absolutely no reason to believe the UK have found any high grade by definition. It deteriorates in normal environments. Theories that the chemical compound must have been high grade at some point are weak and speculative.

I am not actually sure how much is a lethal dose. Measured in micrograms.

Has Yulia seen anyone outside of UK security forces and medical staff? We know the UK has refuse to allow her cousin to visit.

Imagine your outrage if someone had been held in a Russian facility with the FSB trying to tease treason out of a highly vulnerable and recovering patient.

You are being pretty pathetic, seb.

Seb
Member

Sun Apr 08 15:22:17
Jergul:

Your speculations that evidence can't exist don't hold weight.

Time of application is well known, as will be humidity etc. So it's quite easy to work backwards and determine purity at application.

Has Julia seen anyone who isn't medical staff or security forces? Police clearly as she issued a statement.

We know the UK refused her cousin a visa which is unsurprising.

If a UK citizen was being held in this circumstance (where the UK govt was the prime suspect) I imagine we would pursue the matter in the Russian courts and request a neutral third party represent her interests.

The Russians have yet to make a formal request to appoint legal representation of yulia, let alone bring a challenge.

AN ELECTRONIC message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury included the phrase “the package has been delivered”.

Reconstructing purity levels from decay in an uncontrolled environment is speculative and does not hold weight.

Police are security forces.

Is she being held? Yes. Has she been allowed to see anyone? No. Incommunicado.

We know the UK is refusing her family access. Which is incredibly surprising unless we consider how important teasing her to commit treason is for May's narrative.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 04:33:00
ST
A message from Damaskus to Moskva about a poisoning in London is the "evidence"? Lol.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 05:44:35
Jergul:

Your arguing forensic evidence is invalid?
Lol.

Police are civilians.

She's allowed to see anyone she likes and discharge herself. What basis do you have for saying she has not been allowed to see anyone?

We are refusing family e try to the country. As has often been the case in situations.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 07:05:48
Seb
I am arguing that initial chemical quality is impossible to assess if degradation took place outside of a controlled environment.

So lol right back at you straw man player.

Hence the term "military grade" (which can be any grade). Not everyone likes lying directly you see.

Police are security forces. If they are civilian or not really depends on if they take an active part in anti insurgency operations or not.

Is she allowed to see her cousin, or anyone she likes, or is she allowed to discharge herself?

Has she seen anyone outside of security forces, government agents, and medical staff?

You are refusing family access to their relative.

Pathetic showing Maybot.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 07:29:08
jergul:

So, basically, all forensic evidence from crime scenes - which is a place outside a controlled environment - is inadmissable.

I'm loving your demands for a police led inquiry.

It's nonsense of course. You can set ranges on such things. Hydrolysis is a well understood process.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 07:37:54
jergul:

"Police are security forces."

That term has a specific menaing in the UK and does not extend to the police.

"Is she allowed to see her cousin, or anyone she likes, or is she allowed to discharge herself?"

The hospital and police have made this very clear. She is.

Obviosuly she cannot see her cousin, who has not been permitted entry, but that is not the same as a restriction placed on her.

The Russian government is free as per the treaty to nominate a legal representative to her if desired. They have not done so.

Nor have they taken more formal legal sets such as a writ of habeas corpus which could be filed if it was felt she was being secretly detained in this fashion?

So really, other than paranoia, what basis is there to say she is being detained? Let alone detained incommunicado.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 07:38:46
Seb
Not at all. We know that a chemical compound belonging to the novichuk family was used.

We also know that it had very little potency.

Hydrolysis is indeed a well understood process and the most likely culprit for low potency from the production process.

We know it was "military grade", or any grade at all really as the expression sounds omnious, but is in fact meaningless as your source explained.

The police really should find the culprit who placed the chemicals and take the leads that follow from there.

It would be nice if you could point to some form of actual substansive evidence at some point.

Maybot.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 07:46:40
Seb
The UK happily classifies the police as security forces abroad. I am just using the terminology in a consistent way. The highly politisied anti terror task force is managing her, correct? In addition to MI5 and 6 of course.

Obviously she cannot see her family. Because it has been denied entry. She is no longer in an isolation ward and regular visiting hours apply? Is that what you are saying?

She has free access to the internet and telephone and has been keeping in touch with her loved ones that way?

Or is she being kept in isolation and warned about the economic and physical risks that premature discharge would entail ("your travel insurance and NHS will no longer cover your treatment if you leave the isolation ward" would be more than enough coersive force to keep her trapped).

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 08:20:49
Incidentally, the Skripals are both still formally under the guardianship of the UK court of protection are they not?

They were ruled unable to look after their own interests for an undetermined amount of time.

Yulia does not currently have the legal standing to discharge herself.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 09:07:01
jergul:

"We also know that it had very little potency."

No, we don't know that at all. In fact, the evidence suggests it is high.

1. Ingestion through skin contact is a slow burn effect so the delay in onset of symptoms does not indicate low potency.

"2. Hydrolysis is indeed a well understood process and the most likely culprit for low potency from the production process."

Does not follow. If the source of contamination was the door, then it seems unlikley that hydrolysis in prodution would have created a situation where the dose from an unoticeable smear was sufficient to give a lethal dose to Yulia and Skripal sr and a later police officer.

"but is in fact meaningless as your source explained."

I don't necesarily agree with that assessment. In the sense it has no standard definition, sure. In the sense that it is intended to convey "the purity of the substance was sufficiently high and the mechanism for weaponisation sufficiently sophisticated that we are highly confident this could have only realistically been achieved by a state actor", that seems meaningful.

"The police really should find the culprit who placed the chemicals and take the leads that follow from there."

The police do not have the responsibility for responding for attacks on the UK. The security services do.

"It would be nice if you could point to some form of actual substansive evidence at some point."

Says the person who assumes that Yulia is being held incommunicado with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever?

"Maybot" Says the person who consistently appoligises for Russia, repeating Russian talking points, in every circumstance.

"The UK happily classifies the police as security forces abroad."

That would be based on the constitutional set up. Many police forces in other countries are part of the acknowledged security forces.

"I am just using the terminology in a consistent way."
You are not.

"The highly politisied anti terror task force is managing her, correct?"
I have not idea. "Managing her" doesn't seem consistent with available information.

"In addition to MI5 and 6 of course."
I think you are confused as to the remit of MI5/6.

"She has free access to the internet and telephone"

Is there any reason to think she has not?

"and has been keeping in touch with her loved ones that way?"

Well, at least one phone call has been aired by a Russian news station.

But if she were, how would you expect to know?

"your travel insurance and NHS will no longer cover your treatment if you leave the isolation ward"

Do you have any reasons to believe that the UK Government has made such falacious statements to Yulia?

"Incidentally, the Skripals are both still formally under the guardianship of the UK court of protection are they not?"

The answer is no. The court order was limited narrowly to the taking of blood samples for the OPCW and the provision of medical notes to the OPCW.

No lasting power of attourny was requested or granted.

"They were ruled unable to look after their own interests for an undetermined amount of time."

They were not.

"Yulia does not currently have the legal standing to discharge herself."

That is not correct.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 11:40:53
Corpses would indicate the potency was high.

Lethal doses are measured in mg.

What contamination from production were you expecting? Toenails, or water-vapour?

Also, for hydrolysis to be even close to gauging the initial potency, you would still need a timeline, in addition to detailed data on local environmental conditions.

An attack in the UK is not an attack on the UK. But noted that you view this as a political situation, not a criminal episode.

I actually just consistently support having proper evidence for claims being made. Its not my fault your team is so seriously out to lunch like all the time.

Russia does a lot of crap too. Which is not contentious in this forum. Crimea river, bro.

Managing her is consistent with current information.

I know what the MI5 and MI6 do. See "managing her" for details. Or would you prefer the term "groom"?

I believe May needs Julia firmly in her court. And UK security services will use the means at their disposal, including implicit coercion, to make sure Julia acts in UK interests. The rest follows.

"Thus the Secretary of State has applied to this court for personal welfare orders in
respect of Mr and Ms Skripal under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005"

Feel free to review the provisions of the mental capacity act which the rulings are based on.

Yah, you have her trapped and are grooming/coercing the crap out of her.

This is what you defend, Maybot.

swordtail
Anarchist Prime

Mon Apr 09 12:16:22
"A message from Damaskus to Moskva about a poisoning in London is the "evidence"? Lol."

in this day and age it seems it is.
the dots won't connect themselves.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 15:03:35
jergul:

"Corpses would indicate the potency was high."
With medical intervention?

"Lethal doses are measured in mg."
In lab environments. Not with medical intervention.

"Also, for hydrolysis to be even close to gauging the initial potency, you would still need a timeline,"

Which can be provided relatively easily based on when they left the house.

"in addition to detailed data on local environmental conditions."

Which again is pretty easy. The UK is well covered for weather data.

"An attack in the UK is not an attack on the UK."
LOL.

"Managing her is consistent with current information."

So are many other things. Which means you making a deliberate choice to chose one interpretation. We know you apply double standards. The question is why on earth you would do so.

"I know what the MI5 and MI6 do. See "managing her" for details."

Why would MI6 be interested in her in your opinion, given their remit.

"The rest follows." The standard line of the conspiracy theorist. If you make all the right assumptions, everything follow logically.

It's your choice of assumptions which are off.

"Feel free to review the provisions of the mental capacity act which the rulings are based on."

Irrelevant. You would still need a separate court order for that. The court order actually granted was not on the basis of long term incapacity, and the sole provision was the taking of blood for OPWC investigation (the one you repeatedly said the UK should have been invoking, which it turned out it had actually done).

The fact that there are provisions for putting long term mentally incapcaitated into care does not mean that it has happened in this case. If it had, there would be a court ruling.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 15:07:10
The Maybot opens his mouth and wind blows out.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 15:45:47
I think that is the first time I have seen jergul literally run out of arguments.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 16:38:38
Seb
That is not what you saw.

Seb
Member

Mon Apr 09 16:51:54
jergul:

You are advancing a bizarre conspiracy involving the UK govt holding a woman in hospital incommunicado, using a secret court order.

Alternatively, the woman in question is recovering from being poisoned with a nerve agent, and doesn't feel like making public statements that put herself center stage in a propaganda war in which one of the participants is her own government that has access to the rest of her family, is the main suspect in her and her own fathers poisoning, and considers nothing of murdering those it declares to be traitors.

You consistently go down the conspiracy theorist line.

Yeah, you've run out of arguments.

jergul
large member

Mon Apr 09 17:11:34
Seb
I am simply pointing out that the woman has been found incapable by a UK court and is being held incommunicado in an isolation ward while being subject to interview regimes by multiple State organizations.

The motive is to provide time for grooming so that she will come out against her own country and in favour of the May narrative.

We have established the narrative needs serious embellishing (you maintain that the embellishment is simply secret for reasons of State).

The basis for May's narrative is gone. The chemicals used are easier to produce than VX (Source: wiki. VX used by civilians in Japan) and there is no basis for claims that the chemical was particularly potent.

We are missing police work. CCTV coverage and real physical suspects (the pets died of thirst for god's sake after weeks of neglect behind a police cordon. It does not give an indication of any serious competence involved in the actual footwork of solving crime).

The onus is on you to prove something. And to treat Yulia humanely instead of as a pawn in some outlandish conservative theme aimed most of all at keeping May and the party in power (Thatcher showed the way. Find an external enemy and all will be well).

The 33-year-old was discharged from Salisbury District Hospital on Monday and taken to a secure location.

Her 66-year-old father remains in hospital but his condition is "improving rapidly".

The pair were taken to hospital on 4 March after being exposed to the toxic nerve agent Novichok.

The father and daughter were found slumped on a park bench in the centre of Salisbury.

Det Sgt Nick Bailey, who attended the scene, was also treated in hospital after being exposed to the nerve agent, but has since been discharged.

A statement from Ms Skripal released through the Metropolitan Police last week said her "strength is growing daily".

The UK government says Russia was behind the poisoning, but Moscow has denied any involvement and accused the British of inventing a "fake story".

BBC

===========

Yah, incommunicado.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 03:48:28
Jergul:

"I am simply pointing out that the woman has been found incapable by a UK court"

That's a lie jergul. You said they had been ruled as incapable of looking after their own interests for an indeterminate time. That is not what the ruling states.

You asserted this meant she was not permitted to discharge herself.

This was not correct.

Are you retracting those claims and merely asserting that they were at a point in time found to be incapable (due to being unconscious) and subject to a ruling granting the taking of blood samples to support an independent inquiry by the OPCW (which you called for!).

If so, what relevance does this have to whether they are being held "incommunicado"?

This is epic bullshitting.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 03:49:59
It was sarin in Japan jergul.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 04:25:01
The ruling is based on a finding that they were incapable of looking after their own interests for an indeterminate period of time.

I still assert she was not permitted to discharge herself and after being discharged was "taken" away by UK security forces.

The relevance my dear chap is that you are following a Breshjnev era script of confining people under the auspices of incompacity.

For epic bullshitting: See mirror, Maybot.

"In December 1994 and January 1995, Masami Tsuchiya of Aum Shinrikyo synthesized 100 to 200 grams (3.5 to 7.1 oz) of VX which was used to attack three people. Two people were injured and one 28-year-old man died, who was the first victim of VX ever documented in the world at that time. The VX victim, whom Shoko Asahara had suspected as a spy, was attacked at 7:00 am on 12 December 1994 on the street in Osaka by Tomomitsu Niimi and another AUM member, who sprinkled the nerve agent on his neck. He chased them for about 90 metres (100 yd) before collapsing, dying 10 days later without ever coming out of a deep coma. Doctors in the hospital suspected at the time he had been poisoned with an organophosphate pesticide, but the cause of death was pinned down only after cult members arrested for the subway attack confessed to the killing. Metabolites of VX such as ethyl methylphosphonate, methylphosphonic acid and diisopropyl-2-(methylthio)ethylamine were later found in samples of the victim's blood seven months after his murder"

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 07:45:33
Jergul:

I posted the link to the ruling.

Nowhere is the basis for the ruling that the skripals are indeterminately incapacitated.

The ruling permits blood to be taken, no more. The need was based on their inability to consent given they were unconscious. Not indeterminately incapacitated. The considerations are whether it is in their benefit. The word indeterminate and incapacitated don't appear.

You are lying.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 07:48:38
You assert. Without evidence.

Where you assume a lack of evidence on the UK govt assertion, you call it a lie.

So, in asserting she is unable to discharge herself without any evidence, are you not by your own definition lying?

The conclusion is unambiguously yes.

Unless, a
s you hold Russia, you hold yourself to a lower standard than the UK.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 10:30:14
I assert. Without evidence
You assert. Without evidence
We all assert. Without evidence.

The evidence was at the hearing that found her incapable. An indisputable finding.

May is a politician quite able to convince herself of any position she wants to hold.

The problem arises when she uses her narrative in the real world with real conscequences.

Providing the Trumpster with unfounded ammunition to justify protectionism is extremely dangerous. "Malignent force" Russia may be making a live fire excersise of US missile launching platforms within hours.

Play with the truth and you will get burned.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 10:53:24
LONDON, April 10. /TASS/. Russia’s embassy in London has sent another note to the British Foreign Office demanding consular access to Yulia Skripal, the embassy told TASS on Tuesday.

"The embassy referred another note to the Foreign Office demanding a meeting between Russian consuls and Yulia Skripal be organized in line with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the relevant bilateral Convention the British side keeps on violating," the embassy said.

Read also
Yulia Skripal says she's regaining strength daily in first public statement
Russian Embassy demands that London prove Yulia Skripal acting on her own free will
Yulia Skripal discharged from hospital — British media
Britain not interested in cooperation with Russia over Skripal affair — prosecutor

Dr. Christine Blanshard, the Medical Director at Salisbury District Hospital, confirmed earlier in the day that Yulia Skripal had been discharged from the hospital. She also noted that her father, former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal, had "made good progress."

"We are sincerely glad for Yulia and wish her complete recovery. We thank the British medical personnel for their care of the Russian national," the embassy said. "But we are alarmed at reports that Yulia has been allegedly taken to a safe place, which may indicate that the course towards her isolation from the public will be continued in a bid to conceal important evidence and create obstacles for an unbiased and independent investigation."

According to the embassy, details of the Salisbury incident as expounded by Yulia "would be a weighty contribution to the probe." But London keeps on refusing to provide verifiable "information about Yulia’s health and wishes."

"The embassy knows nothing about the state she is in, neither does it know whether she speaks on her own behalf or it is the British authorities who speak for her in violation of her rights. We reiterate our plans to meet with her to make sure she is all right. At least, we demand evidence be given that everything that is being done in Yulia’s respect is done with her voluntary consent," the embassy stressed.

The word incapable does not appear. There was no *finding* or *ruling* that they were incapable. They were both unconscious which is a medical fact, and thus unable to give consent to blood tests at the time. Those facts were not in dispute, so calling either a finding is incorrect.
Nor is it correct to say they were found to be incapable for an indeterminate time.

To continue to repeat this is a lie.

The only thing of any standing was the ruling, which was that blood could be taken. This was based on the judge finding that to do so was overwhelmingly in their interests.

But What relevance does this have now given Julia is conscious? The clear implication is that the authorities had been granted lasting legal powers over the skripals to determine their best interests.

This is demonstrably not the case. Do you agree?

Russia's note - again, they know the gifts position (namely there is no obligation to provide access as if Julia does not wish to speak to Russian officials then Russian officials in attempting to speak to her are not performing consular functions).

The Russians knows that to challenge this the appropriate route (as expressed in the treaty) is to take the govt to court.

They are not doing so but instead issuing notes.

I.e. a PR stunt.

N.b. on incommunicado, Victoria skripal has said that she's heard again from Julia, that she's asking asylum, and confirmed her visa was rejected based on the financial means test.

At some point we are going to have to take at face value that Yulia is in touch with her family, but just has no interest in making public statements or meeting with Russian diplomats.

God knows why.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 11:15:08
Jergul:

When you say finding, what legaly does that mean? Nothing.

The word incapable does not appear. There was no *finding* or *ruling* that they were incapable. They were both unconscious which is a medical fact, and thus unable to give consent to blood tests at the time. Those facts were not in dispute, so calling either a finding is incorrect.
Nor is it correct to say they were found to be incapable for an indeterminate time.

To continue to repeat this is a lie.

The only thing of any standing was the ruling, which was that blood could be taken. This was based on the judge finding that to do so was overwhelmingly in their interests.

But What relevance does this have now given Julia is conscious? The clear implication is that the authorities had been granted lasting legal powers over the skripals to determine their best interests.

This is demonstrably not the case. Do you agree?

Russia's note - again, they know the gifts position (namely there is no obligation to provide access as if Julia does not wish to speak to Russian officials then Russian officials in attempting to speak to her are not performing consular functions).

The Russians knows that to challenge this the appropriate route (as expressed in the treaty) is to take the govt to court.

They are not doing so but instead issuing notes.

I.e. a PR stunt.

N.b. on incommunicado, Victoria skripal has said that she's heard again from Julia, that she's asking asylum, and confirmed her visa was rejected based on the financial means test.

At some point we are going to have to take at face value that Yulia is in touch with her family, but just has no interest in making public statements or meeting with Russian diplomats.

God knows why.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 11:15:08
Jergul:

When you say finding, what legaly does that mean? Nothing.

The word incapable does not appear. There was no *finding* or *ruling* that they were incapable. They were both unconscious which is a medical fact, and thus unable to give consent to blood tests at the time. Those facts were not in dispute, so calling either a finding is incorrect.
Nor is it correct to say they were found to be incapable for an indeterminate time.

To continue to repeat this is a lie.

The only thing of any standing was the ruling, which was that blood could be taken. This was based on the judge finding that to do so was overwhelmingly in their interests.

But What relevance does this have now given Julia is conscious? The clear implication is that the authorities had been granted lasting legal powers over the skripals to determine their best interests.

This is demonstrably not the case. Do you agree?

Russia's note - again, they know the gifts position (namely there is no obligation to provide access as if Julia does not wish to speak to Russian officials then Russian officials in attempting to speak to her are not performing consular functions).

The Russians knows that to challenge this the appropriate route (as expressed in the treaty) is to take the govt to court.

They are not doing so but instead issuing notes.

I.e. a PR stunt.

N.b. on incommunicado, Victoria skripal has said that she's heard again from Julia, that she's asking asylum, and confirmed her visa was rejected based on the financial means test.

At some point we are going to have to take at face value that Yulia is in touch with her family, but just has no interest in making public statements or meeting with Russian diplomats.

God knows why.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 11:15:11
Jergul:

When you say finding, what legaly does that mean? Nothing.

The word incapable does not appear. There was no *finding* or *ruling* that they were incapable. They were both unconscious which is a medical fact, and thus unable to give consent to blood tests at the time. Those facts were not in dispute, so calling either a finding is incorrect.
Nor is it correct to say they were found to be incapable for an indeterminate time.

To continue to repeat this is a lie.

The only thing of any standing was the ruling, which was that blood could be taken. This was based on the judge finding that to do so was overwhelmingly in their interests.

But What relevance does this have now given Julia is conscious? The clear implication is that the authorities had been granted lasting legal powers over the skripals to determine their best interests.

This is demonstrably not the case. Do you agree?

Russia's note - again, they know the gifts position (namely there is no obligation to provide access as if Julia does not wish to speak to Russian officials then Russian officials in attempting to speak to her are not performing consular functions).

The Russians knows that to challenge this the appropriate route (as expressed in the treaty) is to take the govt to court.

They are not doing so but instead issuing notes.

I.e. a PR stunt.

N.b. on incommunicado, Victoria skripal has said that she's heard again from Julia, that she's asking asylum, and confirmed her visa was rejected based on the financial means test.

At some point we are going to have to take at face value that Yulia is in touch with her family, but just has no interest in making public statements or meeting with Russian diplomats.

God knows why.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 11:15:12
Jergul:

When you say finding, what legaly does that mean? Nothing.

The word incapable does not appear. There was no *finding* or *ruling* that they were incapable. They were both unconscious which is a medical fact, and thus unable to give consent to blood tests at the time. Those facts were not in dispute, so calling either a finding is incorrect.
Nor is it correct to say they were found to be incapable for an indeterminate time.

To continue to repeat this is a lie.

The only thing of any standing was the ruling, which was that blood could be taken. This was based on the judge finding that to do so was overwhelmingly in their interests.

But What relevance does this have now given Julia is conscious? The clear implication is that the authorities had been granted lasting legal powers over the skripals to determine their best interests.

This is demonstrably not the case. Do you agree?

Russia's note - again, they know the gifts position (namely there is no obligation to provide access as if Julia does not wish to speak to Russian officials then Russian officials in attempting to speak to her are not performing consular functions).

The Russians knows that to challenge this the appropriate route (as expressed in the treaty) is to take the govt to court.

They are not doing so but instead issuing notes.

I.e. a PR stunt.

N.b. on incommunicado, Victoria skripal has said that she's heard again from Julia, that she's asking asylum, and confirmed her visa was rejected based on the financial means test.

At some point we are going to have to take at face value that Yulia is in touch with her family, but just has no interest in making public statements or meeting with Russian diplomats.

God knows why.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 12:47:01
I am quite correctly calling both findings.

I think a lot has to do with implicit coercion. Ideally to generate a stockholm syndrome type response from Yulia.

So, being able to point out to Yulia that a court has found her incapable is of course quite a powerful coercive tool.

Of course the Russians are offering consular services.

The appropriate route is to demand the UK honour its treaty obligations.

At some point we are going to have to take at face value that Yulia is allowed to say what her handlers tell her to say.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 12:54:21
Heh, the Russians are asking for epicrisis. An angle I had not thought of.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 13:17:46
Jergul:

Provide a quote from the ruling.

If you are suggesting that British authorities are simply making stuff up, there's no need for you to pretend that the courts corroborate the hypothetical lies you imagine British authorities to be making.

Tin foil hattery.

The UK govt has fulfilled all obligations under the treaty in accordance with British law. If the Russians feel otherwise, they must either challenge the UK govt to be behaving contrary to UK law, or if they feel that uk law contradicts the treaty, then as per the treaty, its the hague.

Seb
Member

Tue Apr 10 13:18:54
And when that's provided, as per the court ruling you will argue that it is a lie.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 13:25:43
What lies exactly do you think I am attributing the British regime?

The UK is in blatant breech of treaty. That this has not yet been taken to court does not change this fundamental truth.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 13:27:17
I am suggesting that your security forces are taking the court ruling out of context and using it as part of the coersive package it is applying on Yulia to stockholm syndrome her.

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 13:37:33
Here is incidentally the position you should have taken:

"The conservative government may very well have taken the rhethoric quite a distance beyond what public information suggests is reasonable. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that May is convinced of Russian direct or indirect culpability. This could be due to evidence that cannot be made public at this time. The government correctly expelled diplomats as a reflection of its understanding, but have take no other concrete measures against Russia. The conservative government should certainly look after the Skripals interests in a manner that is both transparent and not at cross-purposes with ongoing investigations. It should of course honour its obligations and communicate with the Russian government through appropriate channels"

jergul
large member

Tue Apr 10 13:39:47
You should in other words not involve yourself in public relations :).

Seb
Member

Wed Apr 11 02:13:43
jergul:

It's not at all clear.

It is very clear that the obligation is not to hinder the sender exercising consular functions.

The UK does not believe that the sending state here is exercising consular functions (it tried to kill the woman in question); and the women is reportedly claiming asylum from that state which again would mean that the sending state is not exercising consular functions.

Julia Skripal is not being detained.

So it looks very clear to me that the UK is abiding by the treaty. The question is whether the UK's belief that the Russians are not seeking to exercise consular functions.

For example, this is why there is no obligation to provide diplomats access to those seeking asylumn (which Skripal is apparently doing).

The clauses in question both contain stipulation that the rights of the sending state are subject to the recipients laws, provided these do not fundamentally contravene the treaty.

Russia has two courses open to it:
1. It can challenge the UK government in court as to whether it's supsicisions vis a vis Russia are sufficient grounds for disbelieving Russia is exercising a consular function in seeking access to Yulia Skripal.

2. It can challenge the UK Government via a Habeas Corups Writ to demonstrate it is not holding Yulia Skripal in unlawful detention.

Russia has done neither of those things.

"I am suggesting that your security forces are taking the court ruling out of context"

So you agree that the ruling itself does not make the rulings you are ascrbing, but you are instead taking them out of context, as you imagine the UK govt might (but have no evidence that this is the case)?

Again, seems a bit tin foil hatty.

"It should of course honour its obligations and communicate with the Russian government through appropriate channels"

And the UK Government is honouring it's obligations.

It is not customery to provide access to citizens of a foreign power who do not want consular assistance and do not need it; especially if they have asked for protection. In those situations, the sending country wouldn't be exercising a consular function as defined under the treaty.

You can't force an individual to go and meet with an official representative of the ccountry that attacked her.

AS to proving that this is the case, the formal process for this is a Habeas Corups writ.

jergul
large member

Wed Apr 11 02:20:59
Seb
You are not the smertest man in this room, boyo.

Here is what you should have said. You know, so as to not be a Maybot:

""The conservative government may very well have taken the rhethoric quite a distance beyond what public information suggests is reasonable. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that May is convinced of Russian direct or indirect culpability. This could be due to evidence that cannot be made public at this time. The government correctly expelled diplomats as a reflection of its understanding, but have take no other concrete measures against Russia. The conservative government should certainly look after the Skripals interests in a manner that is both transparent and not at cross-purposes with ongoing investigations. It should of course honour its obligations and communicate with the Russian government through appropriate channels"

jergul
large member

Wed Apr 11 02:34:17
I get that you are to a point just testing talking points to see how they play out.

You points are playing out poorly and you are coming across as a fanatic regime loyalist (which to a point is correct enough, you are a UK citizen, but I thought you were supposed to be a liberal democrat and not a card carrying conservative party member).

As to Yulia being under extreme pressure by your security forces - that follows from the weakness of the information available to the public. The regime needs front Yulia as a victim of the Russian State, and not for example for her to indicate that a poor relationship with her fiance and his family could lift them to the position as primary suspects (most attempted murders of this type are done by loved ones. "Another cup of arsenic, dear?").

Ingnoring flaming; this thread is a very poor showing on your part. I get it that you are distracted by your reeducation camp for sammy.

But Geeze.

Seb
Member

Wed Apr 11 05:40:47
Back to sloganeering.

I don't think the Conservative government has taken the rhetoricc beyond what public information suggests is reasonable; and if they have I don't think that is a problem as it is the information that is available to it, not the public, which should inform it's response.

It is not true that they have taken no concrete measures against Russia. They have requested the OPWC investigate the incident, and appear to be offering protection ot the victimcs - which is a concrete measure.

"in a manner that is both transparent"
Why transparent? The obligation here is to protect the individuals which in many cases (e.g. in other situations, witness protection) by definition cannot be transparent. In such situations oversight is provided by mechanisms such as the courts.

"and not at cross-purposes with ongoing investigations"

It is not at cross-purposes with the investigations. The court order you consistently misrepresent provided all relavant scientific evidence to the OPWC. British led investigations require that they be protected from manipulation or threat - it is normal in such circumstances to apply processes akin to witness protection.

"I get that you are to a point just testing talking points to see how they play out."

It seems the reverse, you are advocating an extreme response: provide the prime suspects in an attack access to witnesses, declare the government to be lying without any factual basis, make up nonsense accusations of coercion etc.

And you admit to holding double standards, and seem to make it a point of pride.

"most attempted murders of this type are done by loved ones"

With obscure nerve agents only known to have been producced at Russian state weapons facilities? I think you will recall the first thing the UK Govt did was to invite Russia to account for how it could be that this could happen.

If the theory you are advancing here is that her Fiance obtained or manufactured Novichok by virtue of his access to Russian state facilities and then engaged on a private assassination mission on a foreign country, it's incumbent on Russia to explain how it is that their controls are so lax.

They declined to respond out of hand.

jergul
large member

Wed Apr 11 05:51:47
The type of chemical in the novichuk used is reportedly easier to produce than VX that in turn has been produced by civilians in low tech laboratories decades ago.

Information on the class of drugs have been in the public domain since 1996.

But thank you for allowing me to rehash one of the more glaring flaws in the May narrative.

We can employ any principle you like. The scientific one would give May the most benefit of the doubt.

A pre-cautionary approach would attribute internal politics to be the primary motivator behind May's outlandish and unsubstatiated claims.

You have lost it, Maybot.

Seb
Member

Wed Apr 11 07:05:04
Define easier to produce.

Lots of conflicting info has been in the public domain.

The UK govt says it has intelligence that Russia has in the last decade been researching and developing it as an assassination tool. Is this not germane?

If Just repeating whataboutery and outlandish scenarios floated by russian media is "IT" I'm glad to not have "it".

jergul
large member

Wed Apr 11 07:08:47
You managed to degrade May's narrative to a point where it amounts to whataboutery and outlandish scenarios.

Are you working for the Russians seb? You certainly have been posting in their service.

Seb
Member

Wed Apr 11 09:12:50
I don't think it really is based on whataboutery at all.

The UK government has consistently said it has a range of evidence that leads it to believe there is no other plausible scenario other than that the Russian state tried to kill Skripal using a nerve agent weaponised for assassination purposes.

It has become apparant this is base on a mix of recent signals inteligence, signals or human inteligence regarding recent Russian activities, a pattern of Russian behaviour vis-a-vis targeted assassination of those it deems traitors, stated Russian policy and pronouncements on such matters, and forensic evidence gatherd from the Skripals and the crime scene.

Much of this has not been disclosed to the public, nor is there great need to as domestic courts are not a viable place to hold Russia to account. Rather it is a diplomatic incident being pursued through diplomatic channels.

It is apparant that the evidence provided through diplomatic channels to a range of allied governments is sufficient to pursuade them to engage in one of the biggest coordinated responses for some time.

It was also sufficient to pursuade the OPCW to open an investiation and for the convention to vote to refuse Russias request for a joint investigation.

It's also worth noting that Russia has publically said that it will reject any report to the OPCW produces that it is not involved in.

Russia has also refused to provide any clarifying information.

Meanwhile, Russia has offered a range of contradictory alternative scenarios, up to and including that Sweden did it; while it's UK embassy has issued a series of increasibly offensive statements.

I think you have to be applying some extraordinarily divergent standards to come to the conclusion that the UK is behaving inappropriately here.

Thu Apr 12 10:06:54
ST
I saw. I don't think anyone was disputing that the chemical used belonged to the novichuk family. The purity grade was interesting in sense that it is now unlikely the drug was produced at the local krokodil dealership.

Or as the BBC put it:

"The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said: "This is understood to strengthen the argument that this substance came from Russia because it is more likely to have been created by a state actor with the capability to make the nerve agent."

Boris is still full of shit.

He added: "There remains no alternative explanation about who was responsible - only Russia has the means, motive and record."

The means are not a Russian monopoly in any sense
The motive is extremely weak.
The record is extremely weak.

May's narrative remains very weak.

Its fine that the UK expelled diplomats (I would have suggested going further and freezing diplomatic relations for a defined period of time)

But that is as far as the evidence goes, and even that is being charitable (its ok because its ok for heads of state to expel diplomats based on personal convictions such as finding jesus, or thinking Russia poisoned 3 people).

Seb
Member

Thu Apr 12 10:44:16
jergul:

"The motive is extremely weak."

Really? The motivation to kill traitors is not in doubt. Putin speaks of it on a number of occasions.

"The record is extremely weak."
Litvenenko?

jergul
large member

Thu Apr 12 10:53:26
Maybot
Yawn.

My points stand.

Go play with sammy.

You are dismissed.

Rugian
Member

Thu Apr 12 11:01:24
Great rebuttal, jergul.

jergul
large member

Thu Apr 12 11:50:32
Why thank you Ruggy.

Skripal was pardoned and additionally not given a maximum sentence (13 years. Prosecuters asked for 15 instead of the maximum 20 years because he cooperated fully). He was also way too old by Russian standards to be an appropriate target even if you buy into the whole "mad dog" Putin logic the Maybot is presenting.

Litvenenko was murdered. Almost certainly on behalf of business interests. He died at the tail end of the Mafia era.

Mentioning him simply shows the UK is willing to make a pattern of weak claims, and pursue them only when it serves internal party politics in the UK.

My argument is the same as always. The May narrative draws the evidence way too far.

For internal political reasons. May is ultimately fighting for her political survival, so is trying to pull a Maggie Thatcher.

jergul
large member

Thu Apr 12 11:51:13
That seb bores me should by this juncture be perfectly understandable.